After recall for excessive key weight car still stalls while driving.
What is your question?
Car will stall while driving. Sometimes won't restart. At other times starts back up. Buick dealership has checked it. No computer codes register. It even stalled on their service manager driving it into the service garage. After checking some things, they installed a new battery and declared it fixed. Car still stalls while running. Took it back to dealer. They could not replicate problem and are finished investigating. Any help out there? Problem seems to happen more often after car has driven a short while, turned off, then on to the next stop and the stalling occurs.
RepairPal Certified shops can diagnose and repair your 2008 Buick LaCrosse. They provide transparent pricing with a minimum 12-month or 12,000-mile warranty on repairs and services.
The recall dealt with the mechanical aspects of the lock cylinder being able to be turned easily under certain circumstances and essentially allowing the car to be turned off, not "stalling". The symptom you are describing has to be analyzed during an event and it often happens that it may take a number of events during which a technician makes strategic measurements in order to prove what part of the engine control system is causing the problem. It can be very tedious work and it requires that the technician have a very patient, disciplined approach. This kind of problem can be the most difficult to solve that a technician ever deals with, and oddly enough they are rarely paid for the time that they spend doing so and that's why they have stopped investigating it. Nobody can reliably just guess what is happening, it must be proven.
Thank you for the reply cardocIII. This is precisely what the Dealership told me. They can't diagnose the problem because they don't get paid to do so. Are there some higher probability sources for this intermittent failure that could be tested? I saw on two boards that a similar problem was determined to be a faulty ignition control module. Can this module be removed and bench tested for reliability? Are there other components that could be removed and bench tested? I admit that I am grasping at straws but this car is not safe to drive and I find this dilemma infuriating.
There is no way to test it for intermittent failures. What's worse is if someone would simply replace the module without proof you really have no way to know if it has been fixed or not. The most you get from a guess like that is that you only find out that it isn't fixed if the trouble occurs again. Otherwise you still end up not trusting the car because "you can't prove a negative" and you'll spend every day wondering if today is when you find out that it wasn't repaired. Another thing that happens is maybe two or three years from now it stalls out again. When that happens its common for the shop to hear "Its doing the same thing" when there isn't any real proof of what is going on at that point and really its nothing more than just a similar symptom.
The technicians who genuinely have the skills and discipline to make this a relatively ordinary repair are few and far between. The process of learning to be that technician took decades to accomplish and they had to tolerate all kinds abuse along the way and on top of that they weren't even paid for their time on the job to do so. Ironically it was pressure from consumers and even the shops own management that all worked to justify that kind of a workplace atmosphere and that chased many of the people that you need right now who had the potential to be the master technician out of the trade. The legacy of that remains in the fact that the techs don't get paid for their time to figure out your cars problem. It shouldn't be a surprise that there are few techs that regularly successfully do this kind of work, when you understand the stresses they face and the lack of compensation for trying one should really wonder why there are any at all.
Thanks again for the reply and insights. Apparently, the only way to properly diagnose and fix is to offer to pay for the diagnostic process. The risk is that it is an open ended investigation. Therefore if you place a cap on the upper limit, you at least define your max loss as a customer and hope that the mechanic finds the problem within the agreed upon time frame. Further, this only makes sense with a mechanic that is skilled and trustworthy. I would also want someone to define for me what their plan of attack is in order to arrive at the proper diagnosis. Would you agree with this approach from the mechanics perspective? Or would you take a different approach and target a number not to exceed but guaranteed to find and solve the problem?
"Thanks again for the reply and insights. Apparently, the only way to properly diagnose and fix is to offer to pay for the diagnostic process. The risk is that it is an open ended investigation. Therefore if you place a cap on the upper limit, you at least define your max loss as a customer and hope that the mechanic finds the problem within the agreed upon time frame."
This is the correct approach. Set a reasonable limit to try and solve the issue. On the really tough random ones, one to two hours would not be out of the question. There are no guarantees that the problem will be identified and there really cannot be. Anyone that tries to guarantee otherwise is making a promise that there is a significant chance they are not going to be able to live up to.
"Further, this only makes sense with a mechanic that is skilled and trustworthy. I would also want someone to define for me what their plan of attack is in order to arrive at the proper diagnosis. Would you agree with this approach from the mechanics perspective?
Absolutely. For example. Your vehicle would first get a good baseline inspection/investigation. That would include visual inspections, attaching a fuel pressure gage and scan tool and it would be driven and not only would the data be studied it would be recorded and saved on a PC whether the problem occurred or not. Now if the problem occurs, great! Even without all of the pinpoint test capability at the ready a skilled technician would be able to quickly start to narrow the focus as he/she confirmed systems (things) that are working and things that are not. This initial step typically takes about five to twenty minutes depending on the exact nature of the reported symptom.
The next portions of time would be spent checking TSB's and pattern failure records, printing out the system schematic(s) and choosing the testing points that would help the technician gather as much information in as short of a period of time as possible should the problem occur for him/her. That means connect a voltmeter(s), oscilloscope leads, (four to eight channels) test-lights etc. and drive the vehicle again, and again, and again while trying to achieve the conditions that cause the symptom to occur.
"Or would you take a different approach and target a number not to exceed but guaranteed to find and solve the problem?"
Another approach commonly used is to have someone else driving the car local top the shop with the tech at the ready to go to the car when the problem occurs. This still requires the base line investigation to be performed and the test points chosen in advance and in some cases pre-set. Of course the car still has to stay "broken" long enough for the tech to get there and start testing.
If you went to work today and were assigned the toughest tasks that ever are performed at your place of employment and in doing so knew that meant you might not be paid at all, or for just a small fraction of the time that you would be there because someone else made a guarantee how would you feel? Would you take the hit this time for the customer?
What if you succeeded in completing the assigned task? Would the satisfaction of doing so offset the fact that you didn't earn a living that day? What if you were asked to do the same the next day? What would you do if this became so common that it cost you a couple of days pay each week? Would you then go to schools to make yourself better at the task(s) and buy more tools out of your pocket to make you faster, just so that you don't lose quite as much? If you really loved what you were doing for a living that this describes what you would do then you have taken the same approach that a top tech has for the last twenty odd years.
Yea, I still do this kind of work both in my shop and I can do it mobile, for other shops. I'm about sixty miles from you, which is the far end of where I will travel to do support work. With a problem like this the shop has to assign a tech to the car. When I show up I walk him/her through the steps that they have to perform and the tools and techniques that must be used and in that way I teach hands on what the right approach really is and at the same time with a hard failure (one that is there all of the time) we (they) solve it. With a random problem all I can do is set the strategy and get the tech to practice it. That way he/she is ready to attack the problem efficiently when it occurs. (if it occurs)
Thank you for the reply cardocIII. This is precisely what the Dealership told me. They can't diagnose the problem because they don't get paid to do so. Are there some higher probability sources for this intermittent failure that could be tested? I saw on two boards that a similar problem was determined to be a faulty ignition control module. Can this module be removed and bench tested for reliability? Are there other components that could be removed and bench tested? I admit that I am grasping at straws but this car is not safe to drive and I find this dilemma infuriating.
There is no way to test it for intermittent failures. What's worse is if someone would simply replace the module without proof you really have no way to know if it has been fixed or not. The most you get from a guess like that is that you only find out that it isn't fixed if the trouble occurs again. Otherwise you still end up not trusting the car because "you can't prove a negative" and you'll spend every day wondering if today is when you find out that it wasn't repaired. Another thing that happens is maybe two or three years from now it stalls out again. When that happens its common for the shop to hear "Its doing the same thing" when there isn't any real proof of what is going on at that point and really its nothing more than just a similar symptom. The technicians who genuinely have the skills and discipline to make this a relatively ordinary repair are few and far between. The process of learning to be that technician took decades to accomplish and they had to tolerate all kinds abuse along the way and on top of that they weren't even paid for their time on the job to do so. Ironically it was pressure from consumers and even the shops own management that all worked to justify that kind of a workplace atmosphere and that chased many of the people that you need right now who had the potential to be the master technician out of the trade. The legacy of that remains in the fact that the techs don't get paid for their time to figure out your cars problem. It shouldn't be a surprise that there are few techs that regularly successfully do this kind of work, when you understand the stresses they face and the lack of compensation for trying one should really wonder why there are any at all.
Thanks again for the reply and insights. Apparently, the only way to properly diagnose and fix is to offer to pay for the diagnostic process. The risk is that it is an open ended investigation. Therefore if you place a cap on the upper limit, you at least define your max loss as a customer and hope that the mechanic finds the problem within the agreed upon time frame. Further, this only makes sense with a mechanic that is skilled and trustworthy. I would also want someone to define for me what their plan of attack is in order to arrive at the proper diagnosis. Would you agree with this approach from the mechanics perspective? Or would you take a different approach and target a number not to exceed but guaranteed to find and solve the problem?
"Thanks again for the reply and insights. Apparently, the only way to properly diagnose and fix is to offer to pay for the diagnostic process. The risk is that it is an open ended investigation. Therefore if you place a cap on the upper limit, you at least define your max loss as a customer and hope that the mechanic finds the problem within the agreed upon time frame." This is the correct approach. Set a reasonable limit to try and solve the issue. On the really tough random ones, one to two hours would not be out of the question. There are no guarantees that the problem will be identified and there really cannot be. Anyone that tries to guarantee otherwise is making a promise that there is a significant chance they are not going to be able to live up to. "Further, this only makes sense with a mechanic that is skilled and trustworthy. I would also want someone to define for me what their plan of attack is in order to arrive at the proper diagnosis. Would you agree with this approach from the mechanics perspective? Absolutely. For example. Your vehicle would first get a good baseline inspection/investigation. That would include visual inspections, attaching a fuel pressure gage and scan tool and it would be driven and not only would the data be studied it would be recorded and saved on a PC whether the problem occurred or not. Now if the problem occurs, great! Even without all of the pinpoint test capability at the ready a skilled technician would be able to quickly start to narrow the focus as he/she confirmed systems (things) that are working and things that are not. This initial step typically takes about five to twenty minutes depending on the exact nature of the reported symptom. The next portions of time would be spent checking TSB's and pattern failure records, printing out the system schematic(s) and choosing the testing points that would help the technician gather as much information in as short of a period of time as possible should the problem occur for him/her. That means connect a voltmeter(s), oscilloscope leads, (four to eight channels) test-lights etc. and drive the vehicle again, and again, and again while trying to achieve the conditions that cause the symptom to occur. "Or would you take a different approach and target a number not to exceed but guaranteed to find and solve the problem?" Another approach commonly used is to have someone else driving the car local top the shop with the tech at the ready to go to the car when the problem occurs. This still requires the base line investigation to be performed and the test points chosen in advance and in some cases pre-set. Of course the car still has to stay "broken" long enough for the tech to get there and start testing. If you went to work today and were assigned the toughest tasks that ever are performed at your place of employment and in doing so knew that meant you might not be paid at all, or for just a small fraction of the time that you would be there because someone else made a guarantee how would you feel? Would you take the hit this time for the customer? What if you succeeded in completing the assigned task? Would the satisfaction of doing so offset the fact that you didn't earn a living that day? What if you were asked to do the same the next day? What would you do if this became so common that it cost you a couple of days pay each week? Would you then go to schools to make yourself better at the task(s) and buy more tools out of your pocket to make you faster, just so that you don't lose quite as much? If you really loved what you were doing for a living that this describes what you would do then you have taken the same approach that a top tech has for the last twenty odd years.
Cardoclll, are you available to do this and if so where are you located?
Yea, I still do this kind of work both in my shop and I can do it mobile, for other shops. I'm about sixty miles from you, which is the far end of where I will travel to do support work. With a problem like this the shop has to assign a tech to the car. When I show up I walk him/her through the steps that they have to perform and the tools and techniques that must be used and in that way I teach hands on what the right approach really is and at the same time with a hard failure (one that is there all of the time) we (they) solve it. With a random problem all I can do is set the strategy and get the tech to practice it. That way he/she is ready to attack the problem efficiently when it occurs. (if it occurs)
CardocIII, would you please email me at jlfisher09@gmail.com? Thanks
Check your email
I sent you a reply.